Dismissed

Rajinder Singh and Anr. v. Sant Kaur

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Oct 2012CR/6198/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal dismissed a condonation of delay application of 712 days in a revision petition. The Court held that lack of communication between illiterate petitioners and counsel is not sufficient grounds to condone such long delay. The main case was dismissed as time barred.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 712 days refused; application dismissed; main case dismissed as time barred.

Rajinder Singh and Anr. Vs Sant Kaur — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 6198 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 6198 of 2012 (O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision : October 17, 2012

¶6

Rajinder Singh and another

¶7

.... Petitioners

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Sant Kaur .... Respondent

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶15

C. M. No. 26358-C-II of 2012 :

¶16

Allowed as prayed for.

¶17

C. M. No. 26359-C-II of 2012 :

¶18

Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶19

C. M. No. 26360-C-II of 2012 :

¶20

This is application by petitioners for condoning delay of 712 days in filing the revision petition. It is alleged that applicants are illiterate persons. Applicant no.1 aged about 55 years is a truck driver, whereas

¶21

C. R. No. 6198 of 2012 (O&M)

¶22

¶23

applicant no.2 aged about 40 years is a labourer. Applicant no.1 was ill and remained under treatment since 26.05.2009 till 23.07.2009, due to which they could not remain in contact with their counsel, and therefore, there was delay in filing the first appeal. The applicants learnt on 05.10.2012 from a villager that respondent was proclaiming in the village that she had won the case. Thereupon, they came to know that their first appeal had been dismissed on 03.11.2010 by the lower appellate court. Delay in filing the revision petition has occurred due to lack of communication between the applicants and their counsel in the lower appellate court.

¶24

I have heard counsel for the applicants-petitioners.

¶25

Counsel for the applicants-petitioners reiterated the aforesaid version of the applicants.

¶26

I have carefully considered the matter.

¶27

Long and inordinate delay of almost two years in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned on the basis of aforesaid averments, even if the same are taken at face value. Illness of applicant no.1 since 26.05.2009 till 23.07.2009 was allegedly a ground for seeking condonation of delay in filing first appeal, but the said illness has nothing to do with the delay in filing the instant revision petition. The only ground pleaded in the instant application for condoning delay in filing the revision petition is that there was lack of proper communication between the applicants and their

¶28

C. R. No. 6198 of 2012 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

counsel in the lower appellate court. On the basis of this vague, bald and general assertion, long delay of 712 days in filing this revision petition cannot be condoned. If such long delay is condoned on such non-existing grounds, the law of limitation would have to be repealed. On the other hand, means of communication are very vast and readily and easily available these days. Lack of communication between applicants and their counsel in the lower appellate court cannot be accepted as ground for condoning this long delay.

¶31

Accordingly, I find no ground, much less sufficient ground, for condoning the long delay of 712 days in filing the present revision petition. The application is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Main Case :

¶33

Dismissed as time barred.

¶34

October 17, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Rajinder Singh and Anr. v. Sant Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh and Anr. v. Sant Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranno Vs Khurshaidan and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs Naranjan Singh and Ors.

Mohan Singh Vs Darshan Singh

(O&M) Jagtu Vs Suraj Mal and Ors.

Banwari Nath and Others Vs Gram Panchayat Lalwas and Another

Rajinder Kumar Dhanakar Vs Birbal and Anr.